55Q£> 

mm  2. 


■I    ■ 

A 

~" ^o 

A 

<~ 

0 

;_ zj 

o 

— — =  ^ 

1 

m 

4 

<~> 

The 

Canadian  Industrial  Disputes 

Investigation  Act 


Research  Report  Number  5 
April,    1918 

Revised  and  Reprinted 
April,  1920 


National  Industrial 
Conference  Board 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


ED 
5508 

f.  board. - 
n  e  Canadian  Indus 
putes  invocti 
act. 


Form  L-9-10 


^tg. 


•,.'. 


A 


•sS"^ 


Southern  Branch 
of  the 

University  of  California 

Los  Angeles 

Form  L  I 

5506 


THE   CANADIAN 

INDUSTRIAL    DISPUTES 

INVESTIGATION 

ACT 

UN]  ntja 

LOS  AiNGELES 
LIBRARY 

Research  Report  Number  5 
April,  1918 


Revised  and  Reprinted 
April,  1920 


Copyright  1918 


National  Industrial  Conference  Board 

1 5    Beacon    Street 
Boston,  Mass. 


'900 


Foreword 


THE  rapid  development  of  legislation  for  the  adjust- 
ment of  industrial  disputes  both  in  America  and 
Europe  emphasizes  the  importance  of  experience  under 
such  laws,  particularly  those  that  have  been  in  operation 
for  a  length  of  time  sufficient  to  reveal  their  practical 
working  and  the  social  reactions  which  develop  under 
them. 

The  present  report  deals  with  the  operation  of  one  of 
the  most  important  of  these  statutes,  the  Canadian 
Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act  of  1907,  which 
has  been  in  operation  without  essential  change  for  thir- 
teen vears. 


The  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes 
Investigation  Act 


&      The  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act  of 
^  1907  does  not  embody  the  whole  of  Canadian  law  for 
v  dealing  with  labor  disputes,  but  was  enacted  as  a  supple- 
ment to  two  other  laws  both  of  which  are  still  in  force. 
The  Conciliation  Act  of  1900  followed  in  a  general  way 
certain   usages  long  in   operation,   first  as  custom,   and 
later  as  law,  in  the  coal-mining  districts  of  England.     That 
Act    created   a    Department    of   Labour    and    provided 
machinery  for  mediation  or  arbitration,  but  its  use  was 
A  left  to  voluntary  action  of  the  parties  to  a  dispute.     The 
!  Railway  Disputes  Act  of  1903,  gave  to  the  Minister  of 
^  Labour  a  limited  power  of  compulsion  with  respect  to 
the  establishment  of  conciliation  boards  in  labor  disputes 
between  railroad  companies  and  their  employees.     Where 
such  a  dispute  arose,  a  Board  of  Conciliation  could  be 
appointed  by  the  Minister  of  Labour  on  the  request  of 
either  of  the  parties,  without  consent  of  the  other.     In 
*   1906    these    two    Acts    were    consolidated,    forming    the 
^   Conciliation  and  Labour  Act  of  1906,  in  which  form  they 
are  still  operative. 

In  1906  a  bitter  and  prolonged  strike  closed  the  coal 
mines  of  Lethbridge,  Alberta.  The  Deputy  Minister  of 
Labour,  Hon.  W.  L.  Mackenzie  King,  succeeded  in  bringing 
^  about  a  settlement,  but  not  until  much  public  hardship 
r^  had  developed.  The  failure  of  the  existing  Conciliation 
Act  to  prevent  this  strike  revealed  the  need  of  further 
legislation,  and  the  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act 
of  1907  was  a  direct  result  of  the  sentiment  thus  aroused. 

This  Act  was  amended  in  1910,  and  again  in  1918,  but 
since  the  latter  date  no  alteration  or  addition  has  been 
made,  although  some  changes  are  contemplated  at  the 
approaching  session  of  Parliament. 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  one  item  of  the  agenda  of 
the  National  Industrial  Conference  which  met  at  Ottawa 
September  15-20,  1919,  on  invitation  of  the  Government 


of  Canada  was,  "  Consideration  of  the  question  of  the 
desirability  of  unifying  and  co-ordinating  the  existing 
labour  laws  of  the  Dominion  Parliament  and  of  the  pro- 
vincial legislatures,  and  the  consideration  of  any  new  labour 
laws  which  are  deemed  necessary."  On  this  subject  the 
Conference  unanimously  adopted  a  resolution  recom- 
mending the  appointment  of  a  board  to  study  and  report 
on  uniformity  in  the  laws  of  the  Dominion  and  the 
provinces. 

While  the  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation 
Act  of  1907  applies  specifically  only  to  transportation 
companies,  other  public  utilities  and  mines,  it  may  also  be 
invoked  for  settlement  of  disputes  in  other  industries 
on  application  of  both  parties  to  a  dispute,  that  is,  by 
mutual  agreement.  During  the  war,  industries  supply- 
ing war  materials  were  brought  under  the  action  of  the 
provisions  previously  applying  only  to  transportation 
companies,  other  public  utilities  and  mines.  The  prin- 
cipal provisions  of  the  Act  are  as  follows: 

On  application  in  due  form  by  either  party  to  a  dispute 
in  an  industry  covered  by  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  the 
Minister  of  Labour  is  required  to  appoint  a  Board  of 
Reference  consisting  of  one  nominee  of  each  party  and  a 
chairman  selected  by  the  two.  The  Minister  of  Labour 
has  exercised  a  certain  freedom  of  judgment  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  application  falls  under  and  meets  the  require- 
ments of  the  law,  and  his  right  to  do  so  is  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Amendment  of  1918.  No  person  having 
a  direct  pecuniary  interest  in  the  dispute  may  be  ap- 
pointed. To  prevent  a  deadlock,  in  case  all  other  pro- 
visions of  the  Act  governing  applications  for  a  Board 
have  been  complied  with,  but  where  either  or  both  of 
the  parties  fail  to  agree  on  nominations,  the  Minister 
of  Labour  may  both  select  and  appoint  a  Board. 

An  application  for  a  Board  must  be  made  in  writing 
by  a  party  to  the  dispute,  and  must  be  accompanied  by  a 
statement  setting  forth  the  parties  to  the  dispute,  its 
nature  and  cause,  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  persons 
affected,  an  account  of  the  efforts  that  have  been  made 
by  the  parties  to  adjust  it,  and  by  a  statutory  declaration 
that 

"failing  an  adjustment  of  the  dispute  or  reference 
thereof  by  the  Minister  to  a  Board,  to  the  best  of 
the  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  declarant,  a  lockout 


or  strike  will  be  declared,  and  (except  where  the 
application  is  made  by  an  employer  in  consequence 
of  an  intended  change  in  wages  or  hours  proposed 
by  said  employer)  that  the  necessary  authority  to 
declare  such  lockout  or  strike  has  been  obtained; 
or  where  a  dispute  directly  affects  employees  in 
more  than  one  province  and  such  employees  are 
members  of  a  Trade  Union  having  a  general  com- 
mittee authorized  to  carry  on  negotiations  in  dis- 
putes between  employers  and  employees  and  so 
recognized  by  the  employer,  a  statutory  declaration 
by  the  chairman  or  president  and  by  the  secretary 
of  such  committee  setting  forth  that,  failing  an 
adjustment  of  the  dispute  or  the  reference  thereof  by 
the  Minister  to  a  Board,  to  the  best  of  the  knowledge 
and  belief  of  the  declarants,  a  strike  will  be  declared, 
that  the  dispute  has  been  the  subject  of  negotiations 
between  the  committee  and  the  employer,  that  all 
efforts  to  obtain  a  satisfactory  settlement  have 
failed,  and  that  there  is  no  reasonable  hope  of 
securing  a  settlement  by  further  negotiations." 

The  Act  expressly  provides  that  applications  for  Boards 
of  Reference  may  be  made  by  Trade  Unions,  and  specifies 
the  manner  in  which  such  applications  shall  be  legally 
presented. 

The  Act  requires  that 

"Employers  and  employees  shall  give  at  least 
thirty  days  notice  of  an  intended  change  affecting 
conditions  of  employment  with  respect  to  wages 
or  hours,  and  in  every  case  where  a  dispute  has  been 
referred  to  a  Board,  until  the  dispute  has  been  finally 
dealt  with  by  the  Board,  neither  of  the  parties  nor 
the  employees  affected  shall  alter  the  conditions  of 
employment  with  respect  to  wages  and  hours." 

In  this  connection  it  is  also  provided  that 

"  If  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board  either  party  used 
this  or  any  other  provision  of  this  Act  for  the  pur- 
pose of  unjustly  maintaining  given  conditions  of 
affairs  through  delay  .  .  .  such  party  shall  be  .  .  . 
liable  to  the  same  penalties  as  are  imposed  for  a 
violation  of  the  preceding  section." 

By  the  Amendment  of  1918  it  was  provided  that 

"Where  in  any  industry  a  strike  or  lockout  has 
occurred,  and  in  the  public  interest  or  for  any  other 
reason  it  seems  to  the  Minister  expedient,  the  Minis- 
5 


ter,  on  the  application  of  any  municipality  interested, 
or  of  the  mayor,  reeve,  or  other  head  officer,  or  acting 
head  officer  thereof,  or  of  his  own  motion  may,  without 
application  of  either  of  the  parties  to  the  dispute,  strike 
or  lockout,  whether  it  involves  one  or  more  employers 
or  employees  in  the  employ  of  one  or  more  employers, 
constitute  a  Board  of  Conciliation  and  Investigation 
under  this  Act  in  respect  of  any  dispute,  or  strike  or 
lockout,  or  may  in  any  such  case,  if  it  seems  to  him 
expedient,  either  with  or  without  an  application  from 
any  interested  party,  recommend  to  the  Governor  in 
Council  the  appointment  of  some  person  or  persons  as 
commissioner  or  commissioners  under  the  provisions 
of  the  Inquiries  Act  to  inquire  into  the  dispute,  strike 
or  lockout,  or  into  any  matters  or  circumstances 
connected  therewith. 

"The  Minister,  where  he  deems  it  expedient,  may, 
either  upon  or  without  any  application  in  that  behalf, 
make  or  cause  to  be  made  any  inquiries  he  thinks  fit 
regarding  industrial  matters,  and  may  cause  such 
steps  to  be  taken  by  his  department  and  the  officers 
thereof  as  seem  calculated  to  secure  industrial  peace 
and  to  promote  conditions  favourable  to  settlement 
of  disputes." 

The  Board  of  Reference  fully  investigates  the  dispute, 
and  no  strike  or  lockout  may  legally  occur  before  or  during 
such  investigation.  Boards  are  given  power  to  summon 
witnesses,  administer  oaths,  and  to  compel  witnesses  to 
testify  and  produce  books  and  other  evidence  in  the  same 
manner  as  courts  of  record  in  civil  cases. 

If  settlement  of  a  dispute  is  reached  by  the  parties 
during  the  course  of  its  reference  to  a  Board,  a  brief 
memorandum  drawn  up  by  the  Board  and  signed  by  the 
parties  is  filed  with  the  Minister  of  Labour.  If  settlement 
is  not  arrived  at  during  the  reference,  the  Board  is  re- 
quired to  make  a  full  written  report  to  the  Minister  of 
Labour,  setting  forth  the  details  of  its  investigation  and 
its  recommendation  for  settlement  of  the  dispute.  The 
report  is  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Registrar  and  copies  are 
sent  free  of  charge  to  the  parties  and  to  any  newspapers  in 
Canada  which  apply  for  them.  The  Minister  may  also 
distribute  copies  in  such  manner  as  he  considers  desirable, 
as  a  means  of  securing  compliance  with  the  Board's  recom- 
mendation. In  addition  to  this,  for  the  information  of 
Parliament  and  the  public,  a  copy  of  the  report  must  be 


published  without  delay  in  the  Labour  Gazette*  and  be 
included  in  the  annual  report  of  the  Department  of 
Labour  to  the  Governor  General. 

If  a  question  shall  arise  concerning  the  interpretation 
of  a  recommendation  or  agreement  drawn  up  by  the  Board, 
the  Minister  of  Labour  may  cause  the  Chairman  of  the 
Board  to  reconvene  the  Board  and  make  a  report  on  the 
question. 

It  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasized  that  the  Act  of 
1907  is  not  a  compulsory  arbitration  law.  While  the  Act 
undertook  to  carry  the  element  of  compulsion  a  step 
farther  than  the  Conciliation  and  Labour  Act  of  1906, 
it  did  not  alter  the  principle  of  voluntary  adjustment  on 
which  that  law  was  founded. 

A  Canadian  official,  who  was  engaged  in  the  settlement 
of  the  Alberta  strikes  out  of  which  the  demand  for  the 
law  arose,  and  who  was  one  of  its  authors,  said: 

"In  the  dispute  in  Alberta  referred  to  in  the 
report  (i.e.,  the  one  leading  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Act),  we  spent  nearly  a  week  trying  to  get  the 
parties  together.  We  spent  nearly  another  week 
finding  out  from  each  what  they  were  prepared  to  do. 
Meanwhile,  settlers  and  others  were  freezing  in 
their  homes.  We  had  no  powers  other  than  that  of  a 
voluntary  conciliator  to  fall  back  upon.  Had  we 
had  legislation  providing  powers  of  compulsory 
investigation,  we  could  have  effected  in  two  days 
what  took  nearly  two  weeks.  It  was  this  experience, 
and  similar  experiences  in  other  strikes  which  made 
us  seek  to  get  from  Parliament  powers  of  compulsory 
investigation,  which  meant  to  labour,  power  at  the 
expense  of  the  State,  and  with  the  machinery  of  the 
State  back  of  it,  to  choose  its  own  investigator,  to 
summon  witnesses,  to  compel  the  production  of 
documents,  to  take  evidence  under  oath,  and  to 
give  to  the  public  the  fullest  possible  kind  of  a  view 
of  its  case,  including  any  injustices  under  which  it 
might  be  suffering.  This  is  the  really  important 
compulsory  investigation  feature  of  the  Act,  not  the 
penalties  which  we  laid  to  strikes  and  lockouts." 

In  pursuit  of  this  aim,  and  to  avoid  difficulties  involved 
in  compulsory  arbitration,  the  machinery  was  changed  to 
consist  of  Boards  of  Conciliation  and  Investigation  and, 
although  it  was  the  duty  of  these  Boards  to  do  all  in  their 

*An  amendment  to  the  Act  declares  that  this  requirement  is  met  it  the 
Labour  Gazette  publishes  a  summary  of  the  report. 

7 


power  to  effect  conciliations,  and  to  offer  recommendations 
of  settlement,  compulsion  was  restricted  to  their  investiga- 
tory function.  Compliance  with  the  recommendations 
of  the  Reference  Boards  is  optional;  the  weight  of  public 
opinion  alone  is  relied  on  to  make  settlements  effective. 

The  only  provision  giving  mandatory  power  to  the  find- 
ing of  a  Board  is  that  if,  at  any  time  before  or  after  a 
Board  has  made  its  report  and  recommendation,  both 
parties  to  the  dispute  agree  in  writing  to  be  bound  by  the 
recommendation  of  the  Board  in  the  same  manner  as 
parties  are  bound  in  the  case  of  a  reference  to  arbitration 
on  the  order  of  a  court  of  record,  the  recommendation 
shall  be  made  a  rule  of  the  court  on  application  of  either 
party,  and  shall  be  enforceable  in  like  manner.  Canadian 
courts,  however,  have  hesitated  to  regard  a  recommenda- 
tion in  case  of  such  an  agreement  as  constituting  a  rule 
of  court. 

Public  Opinion  the  Backbone  of  the  Act 

The  commonly  accepted  statement  that  the  Canadian 
Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act  of  1907  was  based 
on  Australian  labor  legislation  is  historically  incorrect, 
and  tends  to  give  a  mistaken  conception  of  its  nature. 
Indeed,  this  erroneous  view  has  not  been  without  influence 
in  the  development  of  a  hostile  attitude  toward  the  Cana- 
dian Act,  which,  unlike  the  Australian  legislation,  avoids 
compulsion,  as  far  as  possible,  and  instead  is  frankly 
based  on  an  appeal  to  the  power  of  public  opinion. 

Hon.  F.  A.  Acland,  Deputy  Minister  of  Labour  for  the 
Dominion  of  Canada,  says: 

"The  theory  of  the  Act  is  that  the  Board's 
findings,  being  based  on  what  is  presumed  to  have 
been  a  fair  and  impartial  investigation,  will  bring  an 
informed  public  opinion  to  bear  on  the  matters  which 
have  been  in  dispute,  and  that  either  of  the  dis- 
putants who  is  unreasonable  in  his  attitude  will 
thus  be  induced  to  yield  a  point  and  accept  the 
recommendations  of  the  Board,  rather  than  fly  in 
the  face  of  a  public  opinion  which  might  be  ex- 
pected to  sustain  the  view  of  the  Board;  acceptance 
of  the  findings,  however,  no  matter  how  urgent 
the  apparent  advantage  or  necessity,  is  not  legally 
compulsory." 

The  text  of  the  Act  is  brief,  and  makes  no  effort  to 
exhaust  either  the  scope  of  its  provisions  or  the  details  of 


their  application.  In  the  first  important  litigation  to 
which  it  gave  rise,  and  which  occurred  while  the  general 
sentiment  in  accord  with  which  it  was  formulated  was 
still  active,  the  decision  of  the  Court  contains  these  words: 

"The  legislation  is  tentative,  broad  and  bene- 
ficial, and  it  cannot  be  expected  to  cover  at  once  all 
the  little  difficulties  which  may  be  imagined  to 
arise." 

Much,  therefore,  was  left  to  be  determined  by  de- 
partmental decisions. 

Administrative  Interpretations 

The  Minister  of  Labour,  who  is  responsible  for  the 
administration  of  the  Act,  thus  far  has  taken  the  stand 
that  the  penalty  provided  for  strikes  or  lockouts  prior  to 
investigations  will  be  imposed  only  where  prosecution  is 
initiated  by  one  or  the  other  of  the  disputants.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  although  there  have  been  many  "illegal" 
strikes  since  the  x^ct  became  effective,  the  penalty  seldom 
has  been  imposed.  This  fact  has  led  to  the  rather  hasty 
assumption  in  the  United  States  that  the  compulsory 
feature  of  the  Act  is  a  failure.  Thus  the  author  of  one  of 
the  most  widely  circulated  studies  of  the  subject  declares: 

"The  Canadian  Act  is  a  compulsory  one 
mainly  because  penalties  are  provided  for  the  calling 
of  such  illegal  strikes,  and  the  essential  test  of  any 
compulsory  law  is  the  extent  to  which  it  is  enforced. 
Yet  it  is  in  this  very  important  aspect  that  the  Act 
has  failed  as  a  compulsory  measure." 

While  this  is  to  some  extent  true,  it  fails  correctly  to 
reflect  the  spirit  and  intention  of  the  Canadian  Act, 
which  should  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  its  original 
purpose. 

Hon.  W.  L.  Mackenzie  King  has  said: 

"The  Government  has  never  laid  particular 
stress  on  the  penalty  end  of  it.  The  penalty  part 
.  .  .  has  always  been  treated  much  in  the  same 
light  as  penalty  for  trespass." 

Examination  of  the  reasons  for  such  opposition  to  the 
Act  as  exists  in  Canada  reveals  that  only  in  theoretical 
discussions  do  they  rest  on  the  failure  to  impose  penalties. 
On  the  other  hand,  one  at  least  of  the  instances  in  which  a 
penalty  was  imposed  is  prominent  among  the  sources  of 

Q 


discontent.  This  was  a  case  in  which  an  agent  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  was  fined  for  paying  strike  relief  to 
union  members  who  had  violated  the  law. 

One  employer  has  been  fined  for  an  illegal  lockout,  and 
a  few  union  officials  have  been  fined  for  inciting  strikes, 
but  no  effort  has  been  made  to  penalize  a  large  body  of 
men  for  striking.  The  conclusion  seems  justified,  there- 
fore, that  criticisms  of  the  Act  in  the  United  States  on  the 
basis  of  its  failure  to  impose  penalties,  arise  from  a  mis- 
understanding of  its  spirit  and  intention. 

A  procedure  which  appears  to  be  responsible  for  much 
of  the  opposition  to  the  Act  on  the  part  of  organized  labor 
in  Canada  is  the  use  made  of  the  discretion  which  it 
allows  to  the  Minister  of  Labour  to  grant  or  refuse  Boards 
of  Investigation.  Boards  have  been  refused  in  a  number  of 
cases  where  the  workers  felt  that  they  had  a  real  grievance. 
The  Amendment  of  1918,  however,  expressly  conferring 
this  authority  on  the  Minister  of  Labour  is  in  the  nature 
of  a  confirmation  of  his  actual  practice.  In  strikes  involv- 
ing several  employers  or  several  unions  where  these 
employers  or  unions  could  not  agree  on  a  single  repre- 
sentative, the  Minister  of  Labour  has  declined  to  appoint 
a  Board.  A  strike  involving  many  companies  is  regarded 
by  the  Minister  of  Labour  as  a  separate  dispute  for  each 
company  and,  where  the  various  interests  agree  on  a 
single  nomination,  although  one  Board  is  appointed  to 
investigate  the  whole  trouble,  it  is  legally  considered  that 
there  are  as  many  separate  Boards  as  there  are  inde- 
pendent employers.* 

An  instructive  instance  is  that  of  the  Thetford  mines 
dispute  in  1915.  The  facts  in  this  case  were  discussed  at 
the  Trades  and  Labour  Congress  of  Canada,  which  met  at 
Toronto  in  September,  1916,  and  was  a  factor  in  the 
subsequent  action  of  that  Congress  in  calling  for  abroga- 
tion of  the  Act.  The  chairman  of  the  Congress  described 
the  situation  as  follows: 

"There  are  five  companies  controlling  the 
asbestos  mines  of  Thetford.  After  the  miners  made 
an  application  for  a  Board  under  the  Industrial 
Disputes  Investigation  Act,  they  were  informed 
through  a  letter  from  the  Department  that  the  in- 
dustry  in   which    they   were   employed   came   under 

*An  amendment  to  meet  this  difficulty  is  being  prepared  for  presentation  to 
Parliament. 

10 


the  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act,  and  that 
it  would  be  a  criminal  act  on  their  part  to  go  out  on 
strike.  The  letter  stated  that  there  was  not  the 
slightest  doubt  as  to  the  Act  applying  to  the  Thet- 
ford mines,  and  the  inference  was  that  the  provisions 
of  the  Act  dealing  with  penalties  for  violations 
would  be  rigidly  enforced  if  a  strike  was  declared. 
While  that  attitude  was  assumed  by  the  Minister  of 
Labour,  the  men  were  prevented  from  taking  any 
further  action  in  their  own  interests,  other  than 
complying  with  the  Law.  Suddenly,  however,  the 
Department  switches  and  points  out  that  there  are 
five  companies  controlling  the  mines  at  Thetford  in 
which  the  applicants  for  a  Board  were  employed, 
and  that,  because  the  owners  of  the  mines  could  not 
agree  upon  a  representative  for  the  Board  under  the 
Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act,  a  Board 
could  not  be  appointed." 

The  Minister  of  Labour,  who  was  present  at  the 
Congress,  in  reply  said: 

"There  were  five  companies  to  deal  with  when 
the  request  to  appoint  a  Board  was  made.  I  hold 
that  the  Act  does  not  lend  itself  to  the  conditions 
where  there  are  several  employers  not  agreeing. 
We  had  a  case  in  Cobalt  where  there  were  forty-two 
companies  and  I  refused  to  grant  a  Board  when 
application  was  made  by  the  miners'  union.  I 
would  refuse  today." 

A  delegate  then  inquired  if  the  men  had  the  "  legal 
right  to  strike  after  a  Board  had  been  refused  because  the 
five  companies  at  Thetford  mines  could  not  agree  upon  a 
representative."  The  Minister  answered  that  the  men 
could  not  legally  strike,  but  were  compelled  to  resort  to 
the  provisions  of  the  Act  and  apply  for  the  appointment  of 
a  Board  to  deal  with  each  company.  Another  delegate 
asked  the  Minister  if  a  Board  would  have  been  granted 
each  group  of  employees  in  each  mine  if  they  had  applied 
separately.  The  Minister  replied  that  he  would  not 
answer  the  question,  because  such  a  situation  had  not 
arisen.  This,  then,  appears  to  be  a  fixed  ruling  of  the 
Department  of  Labour,  and  one  which  the  workers  believe 
operates  to  their  disadvantage. 

During  this  same  discussion  of  the  Thetford  mines  dis- 
pute, the  Minister  of  Labour  said: 

"At  Thetford  mines  there  were  two  unions,  the 
local    union    being    there    before    the    local    ot    the 
11 


Western  Federation  of  Miners.  ...  I  have  refused 
to  appoint  Boards  before  when  there  were  two 
unions  quarrelling  among  themselves  as  to  what 
should  be  done." 

Although  contrary  to  previous  practice,  in  at  least  two 
notable  instances  it  appears  to  be  the  latest  ruling  of  the 
Department  of  Labour  that  Boards  will  not  be  appointed 
where  two  unions  exist  unless  they  are  in  agreement  with 
each  other.  Both  of  these  rulings  are  purely  adminis- 
trative and  do  not  arise  directlv  from  the  provisions  of  the 
Act. 

Operation  of  Act  —  Difficulties  and  Objections 

The  operation  of  the  Act  has  shown  that  the  opinion  of 
the  chairman  usually  controls  the  finding  of  the  Board. 
This  arises  naturally  from  the  fact  that  employers  and 
employees  each  select  a  representative  favorable  to  their 
respective  cause,  and  it  has  gradually  come  to  pass  that,  in 
almost  all  cases,  these  two  members  of  the  Board  disagree 
and  the  decision  rests  with  the  chairman.  On  this  ac- 
count it  has  even  been  suggested  that,  in  the  case  of  im- 
portant disputes  involving  large  public  issues,  the  position 
of  the  chairman  be  strengthened  by  appointment  by  the 
Minister  of  Labour  of  three  outside  representatives.  It  is 
believed  that  decisions  of  a  Board  so  constituted  would 
inspire  greater  public  confidence. 

In  some  instances  where  the  report  is  distinctly  favor- 
able to  one  side,  the  representative  of  the  other  makes 
use  of  his  legal  right  to  put  in  a  minority  report.  Mr. 
Carl  H.  Mote,  in  a  recent  volume,  says  that  even 

"public  opinion  is  futile  to  avert  a  strike,  par- 
ticularly in  those  cases  where  there  is  a  divided  re- 
port of  an  investigating  committee." 

The  operation  of  the  Act  has  further  developed  the 
fact  that  Boards  are  most  successful  when  least  formal,  and 
particularly  when  least  legalistic  in  their  attitude  and 
procedure.  Boards  of  which  prominent  jurists  have  been 
chairmen  have  notably  failed.  The  difficulty  of  securing 
acceptable  chairmen  is  very  great.  Dr.  Victor  S.  Clark, 
in  his  investigation  for  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  of  the 
working  of  the  Canadian  Act,  says: 

"The  tendency  is  to  select  the  same  Board  mem- 
bers repeatedly  so  that  several   Boards  have   been 
12 


identical  in  different  disputes,  and  one  chairman  — 
a  professor  of  economics  —  has  served  acceptably 
on  eleven  of  the  twenty-eight  Boards  that  have  been 
established.  ...  A  judge  who  organizes  a  Board 
after  the  fashion  of  a  court,  sets  it  up  on  a  dais, 
takes  testimony  according  to  legal  rules  of  evidence, 
enforces  legal  technicalities,  and  checks  up  his 
witnesses  by  stenographic  proceedings,  so  far  as 
Canadian  experience  goes,  leaves  the  parties  at  the 
end  of  their  negotiations  farther  apart  than  at  the 
beginning,  and  crystallizes  tentative  issues  into 
insolvable  difficulties." 

Dr.  Clark,  in  the  same  report,  quotes  an  experienced 
Board  chairman  as  follows: 

"The  most  important  work  is  often  done  out- 
side of  regular  sessions  of  the  Board.  We  talk  to  the 
different  parties  individually  and  get  to  a  mutual 
understanding  that  way.  We  never  allow  the  dis- 
putants to  leave  important  matters  to  the  Board. 
We  insist  that  they  themselves  shall  agree  on  main 
points." 

The  informality  of  procedure  is  furthered  by  the  Amend- 
ment of  1918,  which  provides  that  the  Minister  of  Labour, 
at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings,  may  introduce  matters 
other  than  those  appearing  in  the  application  and  state- 
ment, if,  in  his  opinion,  it  is  necessary  in  order  that  the 
Board  may  deal  satisfactorily  with  the  dispute. 

Yet  another  source  of  difficulty  that  has  arisen  in  the 
operation  of  the  Act,  and  not  directly  from  its  provisions, 
but  apparently  contrary  to  them,  is  the  delay  which  may 
occur  in  the  appointment  of  a  Board.  The  Act  says  that 
the  Minister  of  Labour 

"shall,  within  fifteen  days  from  the  date  on  which 
the  application  is  received,  establish  such  Board 
under  his  hand  and  seal  of  office,  if  satisfied  that  the 
provisions  of  this  Act  apply." 

For  the  nine-year  period  ended  March  31,  1916,  191 
applications  for  Boards  were  made,  and  169  were  estab- 
lished. Of  this  number  only  60  were  established  within 
the  15  days.  In  14  cases,  between  46  and  61  days  elapsed 
between  the  application  and  the  establishment  of  the 
Board;  in  21  cases,  between  31  and  46  days;  in  66  cases, 
between  16  and  31  days. 

13 


Commenting  on  this  phase  of  the  administration  of  the 
Act,  an  officer  of  an  international  railway  union,  referring 
to  a  specific  strike,  is  reported  to  have  said: 

"Our  case  was  begun  by  notice  of  a  revision  of 
contracts  October  1st.  The  Board  met  December 
3d  and  the  decision  was  given  December  20th, 
allowing  the  company  over  two  and  one-half  months 
to  prepare  for  a  strike." 

Dr.  Clark,  from  whose  report  this  quotation  is  taken, 
adds: 

"From  the  men's  point  of  view  this  particular 
delay  was  peculiarly  unfortunate,  as  a  financial  crisis 
bringing  on  a  period  of  unemployment  occurred  in 
the  interim." 

The  Act  also  states  that  employers  or  employees  shall 
give  at  least  thirty  days  notice  of  an  intended  change 
affecting  conditions  of  employment  with  respect  to  wages 
or  hours,  and  provides  a  penalty  for  disregard  of  this 
provision.  Emphasizing  yet  further  the  intention  of  the 
Act  to  avoid  delay,  the  clause  allowing  this  period  of 
thirty  days  adds: 

"But  if  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board  either  party 
uses  this  or  any  other  provision  of  this  Act  for  the 
purpose  of  unjustly  maintaining  a  given  condition 
of  affairs  through  delay,  and  the  Board  so  reports 
to  the  Minister,  such  party  shall  be  guilty  of  an 
offense  and  liable  to  the  same  penalties,"  etc. 

In  spite  of  this  provision  no  complaint  among  workmen 
is  more  common  than  that  wages  and  hours  are  changed 
without  notice,  and  are  followed  by  delays  in  appointment 
of  Boards. 

Recent  experience  under  the  law  undoubtedly  is 
reflected  in  the  amendments  that  are  now  being  proposed.* 

One  of  these  amendments  seeks  to  prevent  the  possi- 
bility of  a  minority  of  members  in  a  Trade  Union,  or  a 
minority  of  workmen  affected  where  they  are  not  organ- 
ized, from  making  an  application  for  a  Board. 

Another  proposed  amendment  would  make  it  impossible 
for  an  unlawful  organization  to  claim  protection  under 
the  Act  by  contending  that  it  is  a  Trade  Union  within  the 
meaning  of  the  Act. 

*April  30,  1920. 

14 


Yet  another  amendment  is  proposed  that  would  extend 
the  time  during  which  a  strike  is  illegal  until  a  copy  of  a 
Board's  report  has  been  delivered  to  both  parties  through 
the  Registrar.  This  would  prevent  workmen  from  claim- 
ing that  their  obligations  under  the  Act  had  been  ful- 
filled before  the  employers  had  an  opportunity  to  know 
the  contents  of  a  Board's  report  or  to  decide  whether  or 
not  they  could  accept  its  recommendations. 

An  amendment  that  has  not  yet  taken  definite  form 
would  make  it  possible  for  the  Minister  of  Labour,  at  his 
option,  to  establish  one  Board  to  deal  with  a  dispute 
that  affects  employers  and  employees  in  several  plants 
of  a  given  industry.  If  the  employers  affected  agree  to 
the  establishment  of  a  Board  it  can  be  done  under  the 
present  Act,  but  if  the  employers  disagree  and  will  not 
nominate  a  representative  on  the  Board,  then  the  Depart- 
ment has  no  alternative  but  to  establish  one  Board  for 
each  company  affected,  a  procedure  which  has  been  found 
expensive  and  undesirable. 

It  is  clear  that  these  proposed  amendments  seek  to 
correct  minor  defects  in  the  law  and  to  strengthen  its 
central  principle  of  preventing  disputes  until  an  investi- 
gation shall  have  been  made  and  the  public  informed  of 
the  merits  of  the  case.  None  of  them  seek  to  overthrow 
the  law  or  alter  its  substance. 


Statistical  Data 

The  number  of  applications  for  Boards  each  year  since 
the  adoption  of  the  Act  shows  a  gradual  decline  until 
the  latter  years  of  the  war,  during  which  conditions  were 
not  normal  and  the  data  concerning  which  calls  for  special 
analysis  and  separate  treatment.* 


1907 
9mos. 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

3mos. 

Total 

Applications       .  . 

25 

27 

22 

28 

21 

16 

18 

18 

15 

1 

191 

Boards  refused  .  . 

3 

2 

1 

5 

5 

0 

3 

0 

3 

0 

22 

Boards  granted .  . 

22 

25 

21 

23 

16 

16 

15 

18 

12 

1 

169 

Strike  not  averted 

1 

1 

4 

4 

4 

3 

1 

1 

1 

0 

20 

*In  1919  there  were  95  Boards  in  operation,  of  which  17  were  operating  at 
one  time.  Whether  this  reflects  an  abnormal  condition  due  to  the  war,  or  is 
the  beginning  of  a  more  general  use  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  can  be  de- 
termined only  in  the  light  of  further  experience. 

15 


These  figures  show  that  in  the  first  year  of  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Act  only  three  applications  for  Boards  were  re- 
fused, in  the  second  year  two,  in  the  third  year  one,  in 
the  fourth  year  five,  in  the  fifth  year  five.  The  table  also 
shows  that  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  years  there  were  four 
failures  each  year  to  avert  or  end  a  strike  after  a  Board 
had  been  appointed.  That  is  to  say,  in  1910  and  1911 
there  were  nine  failures  each  year  to  effect  settlements  in 
disputes  for  which  applications  for  Boards  had  been 
made,  and  for  the  period  1909-1912  eleven  applications 
were  refused  and  fifteen  of  the  Boards  granted  failed  to 
settle  the  disputes.  The  sharp  decline  in  number  of 
applications  began  in  1912,  immediately  after  this  large 
number  of  failures.  It  should  be  noted  in  this  connection 
that  the  period  1909-1912  was  one  in  which  the  inter- 
national labor  organizations  were  pressing  for  control  of 
organized  labor  in  Canada.  It  was  also  a  period  of  great 
industrial  activity.  The  subsequent  slowing  down  of 
work,  coupled  with  the  shifting  of  labor  to  munitions  in- 
dustries after  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  with  the  intro- 
duction of  patriotic  influences,  may  explain  in  considerable 
part  the  falling  off  in  applications. 

It  is  also  apparent  from  the  above  figures  that  in  88% 
of  the  disputes  referred  to  Boards,  strikes  or  lockouts  were 
averted  or  ended.  If  the  number  of  applications  refused 
is  added  to  the  number  of  cases  in  which  strikes  or  lock- 
outs were  not  prevented,  as  also  indicating  failure  on  the 
part  of  the  Act  to  meet  the  situation,  the  proportion  of 
successful  conciliations  is  reduced  to  78%.  These  figures, 
taken  from  reports  of  the  Labour  Department  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada,  make  no  reference  to  the  strikes  and 
lockouts  occurring  during  this  period  in  which  no  applica- 
tion was  made  under  the  Act  for  a  Board  of  Investiga- 
tion. The  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  in  a 
report  published  September,  1917,  covering  almost  the 
entire  period  of  ten  years  of  the  operation  of  the  Act,  from 
March  22, 1907,  to  December  31,  1916,  states  that  222  dis- 
putes resulting  in  strikes  and  lockouts  occurred  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Act.  The  number  of  employees  affected 
in  these  disputes  was  100,608  and  the  time  lost  4,838,647 
working  days.  In  44  of  these,  involving  44,086  employees 
and  a  time  loss  of  3,665,969  working  days,  application  was 
made  for  Investigating  Boards  under  the  Act.  In  18  of 
the  disputes  the  strike  or  lockout  did  not  occur  until  after 
a  Board  made  its  investigation  and  report,  while  204  strikes 

16 


occurred  either  before  or  pending  Board  action,  and  were 
thus  illegal  under  the  Act;  of  this  latter  number,  178 
strikes  or  lockouts  involving  56,522  employees  and  a 
time  loss  of  1,172,678  days  were  instituted  without  either 
party  to  the  dispute  making  application  for  a  Board.    . 

The  number  of  applications  for  Boards  under  the 
section  of  the  Act  which  allows  voluntary  application  for 
Boards  in  other  than  public  service  industries  and  mines, 
may  be  regarded  as  a  measure  of  public  confidence  in  the 
Act.  According  to  the  same  report,  691  strikes  and 
lockouts,  affecting  149,812  employees  with  a  time  loss  of 
3,254,332  working  days,  occurred  in  the  period  March  22, 
1907,  to  December  31,  1916,  in  industries  falling  under 
this  section  of  the  Act.  Of  this  number,  in  only  26,  or 
about  4%,  were  applications  made  for  a  Board,  and  in  only 
12  of  these,  affecting  5,534  employees,  were  Boards  con- 
stituted. That  is  to  say,  where  the  Act  was  left  to  be 
voluntarily  invoked,  only  about  \$i%  of  the  disputes 
occurring  were  referred  to  Boards. 

Reviewing  the  operation  of  the  Act  as  thus  outlined, 
it  would  appear  that  where  Boards  have  been  actually 
constituted  they  have  been  reasonably  successful  in  ending 
or  averting  strikes  or  lockouts.  Sir  George  Askwith, 
who  was  sent  by  the  British  Government  in  1912  to  in- 
vestigate the  workings  of  the  Act,  reached  the  following 
conclusions: 

"Where  it  was  frankly  adopted  as  a  means  of 
preventing  disputes,  it  has  worked  extremely  well, 
but  where  for  reasons,  some  apparent  and  others 
which  can  only  be  guessed  at,  its  introduction  has 
been  resented,  it  has  not  succeeded  to  the  same 
extent.  In  such  cases  where,  by  the  imposition  of 
penalties,  efforts  have  been  made  to  enforce  the  Act, 
the  results  have  not  been  satisfactory." 

Since  the  foregoing  figures  were  compiled,  the  statistics 
of  strikes  for  1917  have  been  published  by  the  Department 
of  Labour  for  the  Dominion  of  Canada.  These  appear  at 
first  glance  greatly  to  strengthen  the  position  of  those  who 
assert  that  the  Act  has  failed  to  promote  industrial  peace. 
A  closer  analysis  of  these  1917  strikes,  however,  confirms 
a  more  liberal  estimate  of  the  usefulness  of  the  Act. 

The  number  of  strikes  originating  in  1917  was  141,  and 
7  were  carried  over  from  1916,  making  a  total  of  148. 

17 


The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  strikes,  the 
number  of  workers  involved,  and  the  time  lost  for  a  series 
of  years. 


Strikes  in  existence  during  the  year 

Employees  involved 

Time  loss  in 
working  days 

1914 44 

1915 43 

1916 75 

1917 148 

8,678 

9,140 

21,157 

48,329 

430,054 

106,149 

208,277 

1,134,970 

Of  the  148  strikes  in  1917 

89,  or  60%,  were  settled  by  direct  negotiations 
between  the  parties; 

13,  or  about  9%,  were  settled  by  conciliation  or 
mediation  agencies  other  than  those  provided  by  the 
Act; 

11,  or  about  7%,  were  settled  by  arbitration 
without  appealing  to  the  provisions  of  the  Act; 

4,  or  2.7%,  were  settled  by  Boards. 

Two  of  the  most  serious  strikes  of  the  year  occurred  in 
the  mining  industry,  and  were  thus  direct  violations  of  the 
Act.  On  January  16,  5,870  coal  miners  and  coke  oven 
workers  in  Alberta  and  British  Columbia  struck,  with  a 
time  loss  of  42,000  days.  On  April  1st,  in  the  same  dis- 
trict, 7,475  mine  workers  struck,  and  the  strike  did  not 
terminate  until  July  3,  when  the  Dominion  Government 
appointed  a  Director  of  Coal  Operations  to  take  control 
of  the  mines.  The  time  loss  involved  in  this  strike  was 
512,075  days. 

This  appears  to  be  a  disquieting  record.  Nevertheless, 
it  should  be  noted  that  the  greater  part  of  the  time  loss 
occurred  in  the  mining  industry,  and  that  the  United  Mine 
Workers  have  been  among  the  leading  opponents  of  the 
Act  almost  since  its  enactment.  The  remainder  of  the 
148  strikes  were  very  small,  about  43%  involving  not  more 
than  100  workers,  and  lasting  less  than  5  days.  It  thus 
appears  that,  under  the  strain  of  war,  and  in  a  period  of 
intense  industrial  activity,  strikes  in  important  industries 
or  involving  large  numbers  of  workers  occurred  only  in 
the  coal  mines,  under  a  leadership  hostile  to  the  Act.  It 
should  also  be  pointed  out  that  four  disputes  submitted  to 
Boards  in  the  month  of  January,  1918,  included  a  very 

18 


important  railroad  controversy,  in  which  instance  a 
disastrous  strike  was  averted.  In  view  of  these  facts  the 
conclusion  seems  warranted  that  the  Act  is  a  force  work- 
ing toward  industrial  peace. 

Attitude  of  Labor  Toward  the  Act 

For  the  first  two  years  of  the  operation  of  the  Act  but 
little  opposition  appeared;  but  from  that  time  to  the 
present,  hostility  among  organized  labor  unions  has 
steadily  increased.  This  opposition  is  most  outspoken  on 
the  part  of  the  international  labor  organizations.  The 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  at  their  Indianapolis  con- 
vention, January,  1909,  endorsed  the  following  resolution: 

"That  we,  the  delegates  from  Canada,  having 
had  almost  two  years'  experience  with  said  bill, 
herewith  advise  our  brothers  on  this  side  of  the  line 
to  oppose  any  such  measure  of  like  nature  to  the 
utmost  of  their  powers." 

The  Legislative  Board  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Loco- 
motive Engineers  in  November,  1916,  passed  a  resolution: 

"That  this  Board  do  all  in  its  power  to  have  the 
Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act  wiped  oft*  the 
statute  books." 

The  President  of  the  Order  of  Railway  Conductors  of 
America,  writing  on  the  subject  of  this  Act  in  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  American  Society  of  Political  Science,  in 
January,  1917,  said: 

"It  only  succeeded  in  breeding  an  almost  uni- 
versal disgust  of,  and  contempt  for,  legal  machinery 
designed  to  settle  troubles  that  should  be  settled  by 
the  parties  thereto.  .  .  .  The  Railway  Brother- 
hoods are  almost  the  only  large  class  ot  employees 
who  in  the  Dominion  have  scrupulously  conformed 
to  the  Provisions  of  this  Act,  and  they  have  done 
this  at  an  immense  disadvantage  to  themselves. 
...  It  has  been  demonstrated  time  and  again  (and 
out  of  this  demonstration  has  grown  the  attitude  of 
the  laborers  toward  this  Act)  that  the  period  pro- 
vided for  investigation  during  which  men  must 
remain  at  work  is  almost  invariably  utilized  by  the 
employer,  regardless  of  the  spirit  or  letter  of  the  Act, 
to  reinforce  himself  against  efforts  of  his  men  to 
better  their  condition  and  at  the  end  of  the  period 
he  coolly  repudiates  the  finding  of  the  Commission." 
10 


On  the  other  hand,  the  Provincial  Workers'  Association, 
an  organization  of  miners  in  Nova  Scotia  not  associated 
with  the  international  organization,  has  "co-operated 
cordially  with  the  Government  and  with  employers  to 
make  it  [the  Act]  a  success;  and  the  general  officers  of 
the  Union  commend  its  influence."  But  no  recent 
utterance  from  them  on  this  subject  is  available. 

At  the  convention  of  the  Trades  and  Labour  Congress 
of  Canada  held  at  Ottawa  September  17,  1917,  feeling  ran 
so  high  as  to  give  rise  to  a  spirited  protest  against  the 
appearance  of  the  Minister  of  Labour  on  the  platform  of 
the  convention  on  the  opening  day.  The  report  of  the 
Fraternal  Delegates  appointed  by  this  convention  to  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  Convention  at  Buffalo,  in 
speaking  of  the  Act,  said: 

"A  demand  was  made  for  the  repeal  of  the 
Lemieux  Industrial  Disputes  Law,  because  it  was  a 
source  of  advantage  to  the  employers  and  hampered 
the  employees.  This  Act  seeks  to  prevent  strikes 
and  lockouts  in  certain  occupations  by  prohibiting 
a  man's  right  to  stop  work,  and  making  it  a  crime 
for  a  union  to  provide  its  members  with  food  while 
out  on  strike.  This,  coupled  with  the  absence  of  an 
eight-hour  law  for  Government  contract  work, 
made  the  work  of  the  executive  officers  unusually 
difficult  and  created  bitter  feeling  among  the 
involved  workers." 

The  rank  and  file  of  Canadian  labor  express  little 
opposition  to  the  principles  of  the  Act,  although  some 
modifications  are  desired;  the  official  attitude  of  the 
international  labor  organizations  in  Canada,  however,  is 
increasingly  hostile. 

The  State  of  Colorado  has  a  law  which  is  not  dis- 
similar in  principle  to  the  Canadian  Act. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor,  in  its  report  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  Buffalo  Convention,  in  November, 
1917,  states  that: 

"Every  possible  assistance  was  rendered  to  the 
organized  workers  of  Colorado  in  their  effort  to 
secure  the  repeal  of  the  Industrial  Commission  Act, 
which  provides  for  compulsory  investigation  before 
the  inauguration  of  a  strike  or  lockout  in  that  State." 
20 


This  statement  may  be  taken  as  fairly  indicative  of  the 
attitude  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  toward 
the  Canadian  Act  as  it  has  been  administered. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  incidents  arising  in  the 
course  of  investigations,  while  actually  of  minor  import- 
ance, cause  great  bitterness  in  the  ranks  of  workers,  how- 
ever trivial  and  however  casually  related  to  the  actual 
operation  of  the  i^ct. 

Thus,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Fraternal  Delegate  to  the 
Buffalo  Convention  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
reference  is  made  to  a  court  decision  in  Nova  Scotia  in 
1912  in  which  a  single  union  official  was  convicted  of 
awarding  strike  benefits  to  men  striking  illegally  and  when 
four  miners,  employed  by  a  small  coal  company,  were 
fined  forty  dollars  each.  This  was  done  by  action  of  a 
Provincial  Court,  but  the  incident  appears  never  to  have 
been  forgotten  or  forgiven  by  organized  labor.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  refusal  of  the  Department  to  grant 
Boards  in  the  Thetford  mines  dispute. 

Another  incident,  constantly  quoted  by  laboring  men, 
is  that  of  a  decision  by  a  Board  in  a  coal-mining  strike  in 
Nova  Scotia  which  the  workers  claimed  was  interpreted 
in  a  manner  not  in  accordance  with  their  understanding 
of  it  when  they  accepted  the  decision.  So  influential  are 
these  minor  incidents  that  it  would  not  be  far  from  the 
truth  to  say  that  upon  scarcely  more  than  five  or  six  such 
insignificant  events  the  bitterness  of  feeling,  if  not  the 
substantial  reason  for  the  opposition  to  the  Act  on  the 
part  of  labor  in  Canada,  rests. 

It  is  difficult  to  escape  the  conclusion  that,  whether  or 
not  the  penalties  of  the  Act  are  enforceable  against  workers, 
the  very  existence  of  the  Act  and  the  manner  of  its 
administration  is  felt  by  them  to  hamper  the  operations  of 
the  unions,  and  particularly  to  limit  use  of  the  strike  to 
enforce  demands. 

This  conclusion  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that,  of  the 
recommendations  of  Boards  since  the  enactment  of  the 
Act,  90%  favored  the  employees  and  granted  a  major 
part  of  their  demands.  Also,  more  than  90%  of  the 
Boards  have  been  instituted  on  application  of  employees. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  dissatisfaction  in  general  with  the 
recommendations  of  the  Boards  that  can  account  for 
organized  labor's  opposition.     This  must  arise  from  the 

21 


general  operation  of  the  Act  and  the  effect  of  its  continued 
existence  on  the  statute  books,  which  deprives  striking 
employees  who  have  not  applied  for  a  Board  of  Investiga- 
tion, of  the  moral  support  of  the  community.  But  per- 
haps the  fundamental  reason  for  this  opposition,  not  to 
speak  of  possible  antipathy  to  certain  officials,  is  the  fact 
that  the  settlement  of  disputes  apart  from  the  manipula- 
tion of  the  union  leaders,  tends  to  weaken  their  hold  on 
the  rank  and  file,  and  their  relative  importance  in  gaining 
concessions  for  their  followers. 

It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  the  representatives  of 
employees  on  the  Committee  of  the  Canadian  National 
Industrial  Conference  which  considered  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations, 
passed  a  resolution  recommending,  "  that  employees  of 
all  Government  bodies  should  be  entitled  to  the  right  of 
appeal  under  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act  so  long  as  that 
Act  remains  upon  the  statute  books  of  Canada." 


Attitude  of  Employers  Toward  the  Act 

It  is  more  difficult  to  secure  frank  and  definite  expres- 
sions of  opinion  from  employers  in  Canada.  This  reticence 
may  be  partly  caused  by  a  belief  that  if  they  express  strong 
approval  of  it  such  an  attitude  may  increase  the  feeling 
of  organized  labor  that  the  Act  operates  in  the  interest  of 
the  employing  class. 

A  report  by  G.  M.  Murray,  Secretary  of  the  Canadian 
Manufacturers'  Association,  made  in  1909,  after  two  years 
operation  of  the  Act,  is  not  at  all  enthusiastic  as  to  the 
benefits  derived  from  it.  At  that  time  49  disputes  had 
been  referred  to  Boards  under  provisions  of  the  Act.  In 
regard  to  these  cases,  Mr.  Murray  says: 

"The  Labour  Department  is  careful  to  point  out 
that  accompanying  each  application  was  a  sworn 
statement  to  the  effect  that  a  strike  or  lockout 
(they  might  have  omitted  all  mention  of  lockouts, 
for  there  were  none  threatened)  would  take  place  in 
the  event  of  a  settlement  not  being  reached.  But 
the  Act  requires  such  a  statement  before  a  Board 
can  be  granted  and  it  may  well  be  argued  that  em- 
ployees who  have  nothing  to  lose  and  possibly  some- 
thing to  gain  from  an  investigation,  will  foment 
trouble  and  secure  from  their  union  a  snap  verdict  to 
22 


strike,  simply  in  order  that  their  application  for  a 
Board  may  be  made  in  proper  form,  whereas  without 
the  machinery  afforded  by  the  Act,  the  thought  of 
striking  would  never  enter  their  minds." 

This  report  also  complains  that  the  Act 

"is  readily  enforceable  as  against  the  employer, 
for  if  he  locks  out  illegally,  he  can  be  promptly 
prosecuted  and  fined,  but  it  is  unenforceable  as 
against  the  employees,  for  not  only  is  it  impractica- 
ble to  institute  proceedings  against  each  of  several 
hundred,  or  perhaps  several  thousand  employees, 
but  it  would  be  the  height  of  folly  for  an  employer  to 
put  the  law  into  operation  against  even  a  single 
offender.  What  he  wants  is  to  get  his  men  back  at 
work,  not  to  put  them  in  jail,  and  the  surest  way  to 
defeat  his  own  purpose  would  be  to  prosecute  or 
persecute  the  fomenters  of  the  trouble." 

Not  a  few  employers  believe  that  compulsory  incorpora- 
tion of  all  labor  organizations  would  greatly  strengthen 
the  Act  at  this  point.  Some  employers  would  even  have 
the  compulsion  which  now  applies  only  to  the  investiga- 
tion made  applicable  also  to  the  award.  Such  a  change 
would,  however,  amount  to  a  new  law  operating  on  a 
different  principle.  In  general,  employers  are  apt  to  feel 
that  the  Act  binds  them  but  does  not  bind  the  worker. 

Although  Mr.  Murray's  statement  was  made  only  two 
years  after  the  Act  went  into  effect,  it  undoubtedly 
reflects  the  general  opinion  of  the  same  group  of  em- 
ploying interests  today. 


Summary  and  Conclusions 

In  conclusion,  the  following  points  appear  to  be  sub- 
stantiated by  the  evidence  that  is  available: 

(1)  The  commonly  expressed  opinion,  that  the  failure 
to  impose  penalties  for  illegal  strikes  is  the  principal 
weakness  of  the  Act  and  the  cause  of  its  comparatively 
infrequent  application,  is  not  borne  out.  The  position 
taken  by  the  Department  of  Labour  in  regard  to  initiating 
prosecutions  for  infractions  of  the  Act,  in  which  they 
leave  this  to  be  done  by  prosecution  of  the  aggrieved 
party,  appears  to  be  the  only  practicable  attitude,  and 
has   probably    saved    the   Act    from    early    repeal.     The 

23 


penalty  always  exists  as  a  possibility,  and  the  entire 
attitude  of  organized  labor  indicates  that  it  feels  the 
restraint  which  the  Act  exercises.  This  restraint,  how- 
ever, arises  quite  as  much  from  the  mere  fact  of  declaring 
the  strike  illegal  under  the  Act  as  from  the  penalty  pro- 
vision. The  Act  might  be  quite  as  strong  if  the  penalty 
provision  were  repealed.  The  few  cases  in  which  penalties 
have  been  imposed  are  responsible  for  much  opposition 
to  the  Act. 

(2)  The  operation  of  the  Act  has  signally  failed  to 
inspire  complete  confidence  of  workers.  It  has  led  them 
to  believe  that  the  Act  was  not  immune  from  legalistic- 
manipulation,  and  that  under  it  their  rights  or  claims  may 
be  thwarted,  not  on  reasonable  grounds,  but  by  legal 
technicalities.  As  evidence  of  this  they  cite  the  adminis- 
trative delay  which,  although  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Act,  has  occurred  perhaps  in  the  majority  of  the  disputes 
that  have  been  referred  under  it;  also  the  refusal  of  the 
Department  to  appoint  Boards  in  a  number  of  instances 
where  the  men  felt  that  they  had  real  grievances,  par- 
ticularly where  two  or  more  employers,  or  two  or  more 
unions  involved  in  an  individual  dispute,  cannot  agree  on 
a  single  representative.  As  the  operation  of  the  Act  has 
largely  covered  a  period  during  which  the  international 
labor  organizations  have  been  struggling  for  a  foothold 
in  Canada,  sometimes  in  sharp  opposition  to  the  estab- 
lished local  trades  unions,  this  ruling  has  caused  much 
discontent,  the  workers  feeling  that  it  interferes  with 
what  they  believe  to  be  their  right  to  organize. 

(3)  The  requirement  of  the  Act  that  a  Board  may  not 
be  applied  for  unless  one  or  the  other  of  the  disputants 
makes  a  statutory  declaration  that  a  strike  or  lockout  will 
otherwise  occur,  has  not  operated  advantageously,  and 
is  no  doubt  chargeable  with  some  of  the  illegal  strikes 
that  have  occurred.  A  group  of  organized  employees 
cannot  declare  that  a  strike  will  occur  as  the  result  of 
any  dispute  without  an  official  vote  of  their  organization. 
Such  a  vote  is  not  obtained  without  considerable  effort, 
and  having  been  obtained  the  men  are  but  little  inclined 
to  forget  the  authority  which  it  gives  them  to  declare  a 
strike.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  particular  strength  this 
provision  adds  to  the  Act,  but  it  is  quite  easy  to  see  the 
difficulty  which  it  occasions.  The  employer  in  order  to 
make  application   for  a   Board  must  make  a  statutory 

24 


declaration  that,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief, 
his  firm  will  otherwise  declare  a  lockout,  and  few  em- 
ployers are  ordinarily  willing  to  make  such  a  declaration, 
for  by  so  doing  they  immediately  forego  the  good  will  and 
backing  of  the  public. 

(4)  Owing  to  the  fact  that  incidental  administrative 
rulings  tend  to  become  fixed  as  precedents,  and  further 
that,  especially  among  workers,  incidental  causes  of 
irritation  are  held  in  memory  for  many  years,  opposition 
to  the  Act  is  cumulative  and  tends  to  become  stronger, 
despite  the  fact  that  its  operation  may  have  been  generally 
beneficial  to  the  workers  themselves. 

(5)  The  existence  of  the  Act  on  the  statute  books  has 
acted  as  a  wholesome  restraint  both  on  employers  and 
employees  through  a  period  of  great  industrial  unrest; 
it  has  served  in  some  degree  to  crystallize  public  opinion 
and  in  particular  cases  to  make  it  effective  for  maintenance 
of  industrial  peace. 

(6)  Investigations  have  been  most  successful  when 
most  informally  conducted;  introduction  of  legal  ma- 
chinery is  almost  certain  to  destroy  their  usefulness. 

(7)  Where  investigations  have  been  fairly  conducted, 
with  no  unfortunate  administrative  irritations,  and  with 
tactful,  informal  procedure,  resultant  recommendations 
have  been  almost  universally  backed  by  public  opinion 
and  accepted  by  the  disputants. 

(8)  The  Act  after  thirteen  years  of  operation  has  sufficient 
support  in  Canadian  public  opinion  to  retain  a  place  on  the 
statute  books,  and  to  invite  legislative  consideration  for 
its  improvement,  without  vital  alteration. 


25 


Appendix 

Abridged  Text  of  The  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes 
Investigation  Act,  1907 

An  Act  to  aid  in  the  Prevention  and  Settlement  of  Strikes  and  Lockouts  in 
Mines  and  Industries  connected  with  Public  Utilities.  (6-7  Edward  VII, 
chap.  20.     Assented  to  22d  March,  1907.) 

1.  This  Act  may  be  cited  as  The  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act,  1907. 

2.  (e)  "dispute"  or  "industrial  dispute"  means  any  dispute  or  difference 
between  an  employer  and  one  or  more  of  his  employees,  as  to  matters  or  things 
affecting  or  relating  to  work  done  or  to  be  done  by  him  or  them,  or  as  to  the 
privileges,  rights,  and  duties  of  employers  or  employees  (not  involving  any  such 
violation  thereof  as  constitutes  an  indictable  offence);  and,  without  limiting 
the  general  nature  of  the  above  definition,  includes  all  matters  relating  to  — 

(1)  the  wages  allowance  or  other  remuneration  of  employees, 
or  the  price  paid  or  to  be  paid  in  respect  of  employment; 

(2)  the  hours  of  employment,  sex,  age,  qualification  or  status 
of  employees,  and  the  mode,  terms  and  conditions  of 
employment; 

(3)  the  employment  of  children  or  any  person  or  persons  or 
class  of  persons,  or  the  dismissal  of  or  refusal  to  employ 
any  particular  person  or  persons  or  class  of  persons; 

(4)  claims  on  the  part  of  an  employer  or  any  employee  as 
to  whether  and,  if  so,  under  what  circumstances,  prefer- 
ence of  employment  should  or  should  not  be  given  to  one 
class  over  another  of  persons  being  or  not  being  members 
of  labour  or  other  organizations,  British  subjects  or 
aliens; 

(5)  materials  supplied  and  alleged  to  be  bad,  unfit  or  un- 
suitable, or  damage  alleged  to  have  been  done  to  work; 

(6)  any  established  custom  or  usage,  either  generally  or 
in  the  particular  district  affected; 

(7)  the  interpretation  of  an  agreement  or  a  clause  thereof; 

(/)  "lockout"  (without  limiting  the  nature  of  its  meaning)  means  a  closing 
of  a  place  of  employment,  or  a  suspension  of  work,  or  a  refusal  by  an  employer 
to  continue  to  employ  any  number  of  his  employees  in  consequence  of  a  dispute, 
done  with  a  view  to  compelling  his  employees,  or  to  aid  another  employer  in 
compelling  his  employees,  to  accept  terms  of  employment; 

(g)  "strike"  or  "to  go  on  strike"  (without  limiting  the  nature  of  its  meaning) 
means  the  cessation  of  work  by  a  body  of  employees  acting  in  combination,  or 
a  concerted  refusal  or  a  refusal  under  a  common  understanding  of  any  number 
of  employees  to  continue  to  work  for  an  employer,  in  consequence  of  a  dispute, 
done  as  a  means  of  compelling  their  employer,  or  to  aid  other  employees  in 
compelling  their  employer,  to  accept  terms  of  employment; 

26 


(h)  "trade  union"  or  "union"  means  any  organization  of  employees  formed 
for  the  purpose  of  regulating  relations  between  employers  and  employees. 

3.     The  Minister  of  Labour  shall  have  the  general  administration  of  this  Act. 

5.  Wherever  any  dispute  exists  between  an  employer  and  any  of  his  em- 
ployees, and  the  parties  thereto  are  unable  to  adjust  it,  either  of  the  parties  to 
the  dispute  may  make  application  to  the  Minister  for  the  appointment  of  a 
Board  of  Conciliation  and  Investigation,  to  which  Board  the  dispute  may  be 
referred  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act:  Provided,  however,  that,  in  the  case 
of  a  dispute  between  a  railway  company  and  its  employees,  such  dispute  may 
be  referred,  for  the  purpose  of  conciliation  and  investigation,  under  the  pro- 
visions concerning  railway  disputes  in  the  Conciliation  and  Labour  Act. 

6.  Whenever,  under  this  Act,  an  application  is  made  in  due  form  for  the 
appointment  of  a  Board  of  Conciliation  and  Investigation,  and  such  application 
does  not  relate  to  a  dispute  which  is  the  subject  of  a  reference  under  the  pro- 
visions concerning  railway  disputes  in  the  Conciliation  and  Labour  Act,  the 
Minister,  whose  decision  for  such  purpose  shall  be  final,  shall,  within  fifteen 
days  from  the  date  at  which  the  application  is  received,  establish  such  Board 
under  his  hand  and  seal  of  office,  if  satisfied  that  the  provisions  of  this  Act 
apply.  The  decision  of  the  Minister  as  to  granting  or  refusing  a  Board  is  final, 
and  not  subject  to  review  by  any  court. 

7.  Every  Board  shall  consist  of  three  members  who  shall  be  appointed  by 
the  Minister. 

2.  Of  the  three  members  of  the  Board  one  shall  be  appointed  on  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  employer  and  one  on  the  recommendation  of  the  employees 
(the  parties  to  the  dispute),  and  the  third  on  the  recommendation  of  the  members 
so  chosen. 

8.  For  the  purposes  of  appointment  of  the  members  of  the  Board,  the  follow- 
ing provisions  shall  apply: — 

1.  Each  party  to  the  dispute  may,  at  the  time  of  making  application  or 
within  five  days  after  being  requested  so  to  do  by  the  Minister,  recommend  the 
name  of  one  person  who  is  willing  and  ready  to  act  as  a  member  of  the  Board, 
and  the  Minister  shall  appoint  such  person  a  member  of  the  Board. 

2.  If  either  of  the  parties  fails  or  neglects  to  duly  make  any  recommendation 
within  the  said  period,  or  such  extension  thereof  as  the  Minister,  on  cause 
shown,  grants,  the  Minister  shall,  as  soon  thereafter  as  possible,  appoint  a  fit 
person  to  be  a  member  of  the  Board;  and  such  member  shall  be  deemed  to  be 
appointed  on  the  recommendation  of  the  said  party. 

3.  The  members  chosen  on  the  recommendation  of  the  parties  may,  within 
five  days  after  their  appointment,  recommend  the  name  of  one  person  who  is 
willing  and  ready  to  act  as  a  third  member  of  the  Board,  and  the  Minister  shall 
appoint  such  person  a  member  of  the  Board. 

4.  If  the  members  chosen  on  the  recommendation  of  the  parties  fail  or 
neglect  to  duly  make  any  recommendation  within  the  said  period,  or  such 
extension  thereof  as  the  Minister,  on  cause  shown,  grants,  the  Minister  shall,  as 
soon  thereafter  as  possible,  appoint  a  fit  person  to  be  a  third  member  of  the 
Board,  and  such  member  shall  be  deemed  to  be  appointed  on  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  two  other  members  of  the  Board. 

5.  The  third  member  shall  be  the  Chairman  of  the  Board. 

11.  No  person  shall  act  as  a  member  of  a  Board  who  has  any  direct  pecuniary 
interest  in  the  issue  of  a  dispute  referred  to  such  Board. 

27 


15.  For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  manner  in  which,  and  the  persons  by 
whom,  an  application  for  the  appointment  of  a  Board  is  to  be  made,  the  follow- 
ing provisions  shall  apply: — 

1.  The  application  shall  be  made  in  writing  in  the  prescribed  form,  and 
shall  be  in  substance  a  request  to  the  Minister  to  appoint  a  Board  to  which  the 
existing  dispute  may  be  referred  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act. 

2.  The  application  shall  be  accompanied  by  — 
(a)  A  statement  setting  forth  — 

(1)  the  parties  to  the  dispute; 

(2)  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  dispute,  including  any  claims 
or  demands  made  by  either  party  upon  the  other,  to 
which  exception  is  taken; 

(3)  an  approximate  estimate  of  the  number  of  persons 
affected  or  likely  to  be  affected  by  the  dispute; 

(4)  the  efforts  made  by  the  parties  themselves  to  adjust  the 
dispute; 

and  —  (b  as  amended  by  9-10  Edw.  VII,  chap.  29.) 

"  (b)  A  statutory  declaration  setting  forth  that,  failing  an  adjustment  of  the 
dispute  or  a  reference  thereof  by  the  Minister  to  a  Board,  to  the  best  of  the 
knowledge  and  belief  of  the  declarant  a  lockout  or  strike  will  be  declared,  and 
(except  where  the  application  is  made  by  an  employer  in  consequence  of  an 
intended  change  in  wages  or  hours  proposed  by  the  said  employer)  that  the 
necessary  authority  to  declare  such  lockout  or  strike  has  been  obtained;  or, 
where  a  dispute  directly  affects  employees  in  more  than  one  province  and  such 
employees  are  members  of  a  trade  union  having  a  general  committee  authorized 
to  carry  on  negotiations  in  disputes  between  employers  and  employees  and  so 
recognized  by  the  employer,  a  statutory  declaration  by  the  chairman  or  presi- 
dent and  by  the  secretary  of  such  committee  setting  forth  that,  failing  an 
adjustment  of  the  dispute  or  a  reference  thereof  by  the  Minister  to  a  Board,  to 
the  best  of  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  declarants  a  strike  will  be  declared, 
that  the  dispute  has  been  the  subject  of  negotiations  between  the  committee  and 
the  employer,  that  all  efforts  to  obtain  a  satisfactory  settlement  have  failed, 
and  that  there  is  no  reasonable  hope  of  securing  a  settlement  by  further 
negotiations." 

16.     The  application  and  the  declaration  accompanying  it 

(3)  if  made  by  employees,  members  of  a  trade  union,  shall  be  signed  by  two 
of  its  officers  duly  authorized  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  members  of  the  union, 
or  by  a  vote  taken  by  ballot  of  the  members  of  the  union  present  at  a  meeting 
called  on  not  less  than  three  days'  notice  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  ques- 
tion; 

(4)  if  made  by  employees,  some  or  all  of  whom  are  not  members  of  a  trade 
union,  shall  be  signed  by  two  of  their  number  duly  authorized  by  a  majority 
vote  taken  by  ballot  of  the  employees  present  at  a  meeting  called  on  not  less 
than  three  days'  notice  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  question. 

21.  Any  dispute  may  be  referred  to  a  Board  by  application  in  that  behalf 
made  in  due  form  by  any  party  thereto;  provided  that  no  dispute  shall  be 
the  subject  of  reference  to  a  Board  under  this  Act  in  any  case  in  which  the 
employees  affected  by  the  dispute  are  fewer  than  ten. 

23.  In  every  case  where  a  dispute  is  duly  referred  to  a  Board  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  Board  to  endeavor  to  bring  about  a  settlement  of  the  dispute,  and 

28 


to  this  end  the  Board  shall,  in  such  manner  as  it  thinks  fit,  expeditiously  and 
carefully  inquire  into  the  dispute  and  all  matters  affecting  the  merits  thereof 
and  the  right  settlement  thereof.  In  the  course  of  such  inquiry  the  Board  may 
make  all  such  suggestions  and  do  all  such  things  as  it  deems  right  and  proper 
for  inducing  the  parties  to  come  to  a  fair  and  amicable  settlement  of  the  dispute, 
and  may  adjourn  the  proceedings  for  any  period  the  Board  thinks  reasonable 
to  allow  the  parties  to  agree  upon  terms  of  settlement. 

24.  If  a  settlement  of  the  dispute  is  arrived  at  by  the  parties  during  the 
course  of  its  reference  to  the  Board,  a  memorandum  of  the  settlement  shall  be 
drawn  up  by  the  Board  and  signed  by  the  parties,  and  shall,  if  the  parties  so 
agree,  be  binding  as  if  made  a  recommendation  by  the  Board  under  section  62 
of  this  Act,  and  a  copy  thereof  with  a  report  upon  the  proceedings  shall  be 
forwarded  to  the  Minister. 

25.  If  a  settlement  of  the  dispute  is  not  arrived  at  during  the  course  of  its 
reference  to  the  Board,  the  Board  shall  make  a  full  report  thereon  to  the 
Minister,  which  report  shall  set  forth  the  various  proceedings  and  steps  taken 
by  the  Board  for  the  purpose  of  fully  and  carefully  ascertaining  all  the  facts  and 
circumstances,  and  shall  also  set  forth  such  facts  and  circumstances,  and  its 
findings  therefrom,  including  the  cause  of  the  dispute  and  the  Board's  recom- 
mendation for  the  settlement  of  the  dispute  according  to  the  merits  and  sub- 
stantial justice  of  the  case. 

28.  Upon  receipt  of  the  Board's  report  the  Minister  shall  forthwith  cause 
the  report  to  be  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Registrar  and  a  copy  thereof  to  be  sent 
free  of  charge  to  the  parties  to  the  dispute,  and  to  the  representative  of  any 
newspaper  published  in  Canada  who  applies  therefor,  and  the  Minister  may 
distribute  copies  of  the  report,  and  of  any  minority  report,  in  such  manner  as 
to  him  seems  most  desirable  as  a  means  of  securing  a  compliance  with  the 
Board's  recommendation.  The  Registrar  shall,  upon  application,  supply 
certified  copies  for  a  prescribed  fee,  to  persons  other  than  those  mentioned  in 
this  section. 

29.  For  the  information  of  Parliament  and  the  public,  the  report  and  recom- 
mendation of  the  Board,  and  any  minority  report,  shall,  without  delay,  be 
published  in  the  Labour  Gazette,  and  be  included  in  the  annual  report  of  the 
Department  of  Labour  to  the  Governor  General. 

30.  For  the  purpose  of  its  inquiry  the  Board  shall  have  all  the  powers  of 
summoning  before  it,  and  enforcing  the  attendance  of  witnesses,  of  administering 
oaths,  and  of  requiring  witnesses  to  give  evidence  on  oath  or  on  solemn  affirma- 
tion (if  they  are  persons  entitled  to  affirm  in  civil  matters)  and  to  produce  such 
books,  papers  or  other  documents  or  things  as  the  Board  deems  requisite  to  the 
full  investigation  of  the  matters  into  which  it  is  inquiring,  as  is  vested  in  any 
court  of  record  in  civil  cases. 

2.  Any  member  of  the  Board  may  administer  an  oath,  and  the  Board  may 
accept,  admit  and  call  for  such  evidence  as  in  equity  and  good  conscience  it 
thinks  fit,  whether  strictly  legal  evidence  or  not. 

56.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  employer  to  declare  or  cause  a  lockout,  or 
for  any  employee  to  go  on  strike,  on  account  of  any  dispute  prior  to  or  during  a 
reference  of  such  dispute  to  a  Board  of  Conciliation  and  Investigation  under 
the  provisions  of  this  Act,  or  prior  to  or  during  a  reference  under  the  provisions 
concerning  railway  disputes  in  the  Conciliation  and  Labour  Act:  Provided 
that  nothing  in  this  Act  shall  prohibit  the  suspension  or  discontinuance  of  any 
industry  or  of  the  working  of  any  persons  therein  for  any  cause  not  constituting 
a  lockout  or  strike:  Provided  also  that,  except  where  the  parties  have  entered 
into  an  agreement  under  section  62  of  this  Act,  nothing  in  this  Act  shall  be  held 
to  restrain  any  employer  from  declaring  a  lockout,  or  any  employee  from  going 
on  strike  in  respect  of  any  dispute  which  has  been  duly  referred  to  a  Board  and 

29 


which  has  been  dealt  with  under  section  24  or  25  of  this  Act,  or  in  respect  of 
any  dispute  which  has  been  the  subject  of  a  reference  under  the  provisions 
concerning  railway  disputes  in  the  Conciliation  and  Labour  Act. 

57.  Employers  and  employees  shall  give  at  least  thirty  days'  notice  of  an 
intended  change  affecting  conditions  of  employment  with  respect  to  wages  or 
hours;  and  in  every  case  where  a  dispute  has  been  referred  to  a  Board,  until 
the  dispute  has  been  finally  dealt  with  by  the  Board,  neither  of  the  parties  nor 
the  employees  affected  shall  alter  the  conditions  of  employment  with  respect  to 
wages  or  hours,  or  on  account  of  the  dispute  do  or  be  concerned  in  doing, 
directly  or  indirectly,  anything  in  the  nature  of  a  lockout  or  strike,  or  a  sus- 
pension or  discontinuance  of  employment  or  work,  but  the  relationship  of 
employer  and  employee  shall  continue  uninterrupted  by  the  dispute,  or  anything 
arising  out  of  the  dispute;  but  if,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  either  party  uses 
this  or  any  other  provision  of  this  Act  for  the  purpose  of  unjustly  maintaining  a 
given  condition  of  affairs  through  delay,and  the  Board  so  reports  to  the  Minister, 
such  party  shall  be  guilty  of  an  offence,  and  liable  to  the  same  penalties  as  are 
imposed  for  a  violation  of  the  next  preceding  section. 

58.  Any  employer  declaring  or  causing  a  lockout  contrary  to  the  provisions 
of  this  Act  shall  be  liable  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars,  nor  more 
than  one  thousand  dollars  for  each  day  or  part  of  a  day  that  such  lockout  exists. 

59.  Any  employee  who  goes  on  strike  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act 
shall  be  liable  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than  ten  dollars  nor  more  than  fifty  dollars,  for 
each  day  or  part  of  a  day  that  such  employee  is  on  strike. 

60.  Any  person  who  incites,  encourages  or  aids  in  any  manner  any  employer 
to  declare  or  continue  a  lockout,  cr  any  employee  to  go  or  continue  on  strike 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  shall  be  guilty  of  an  offence  and  liable  to 
a  fine  of  not  less  than  fifty  dollars  nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars. 

62.  Either  party  to  a  dispute  which  may  be  referred  under  this  Act  to  a 
Board  may  agree  in  writing,  at  any  time  before  or  after  the  Board  has  made 
its  report  and  recommendation,  to  be  bound  by  the  recommendation  of  the 
Board  in  the  same  manner  as  parties  are  bound  upon  an  award  made  pursuant 
to  a  reference  to  arbitration  on  the  order  of  a  court  of  record;  every  agreement 
so  to  be  bound  made  by  one  party  shall  be  forwarded  to  the  Registrar,  who  shall 
communicate  it  to  the  other  party,  and  if  the  other  party  agrees  in  like  manner 
to  be  bound  by  the  recommendation  of  the  Board,  then  the  recommendation 
shall  be  made  a  rule  of  the  said  court  on  the  application  of  either  party  and  shall 
be  enforceable  in  like  manner. 

63.  In  the  event  of  a  dispute  arising  in  any  industry  or  trade  other  than 
such  as  may  be  included  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  and  such  dispute 
threatens  to  result  in  a  lockout  or  strike,  or  has  actually  resulted  in  a  lockout  or 
strike,  either  of  the  parties  may  agree  in  writing  to  aliow  such  dispute  to  be 
referred  to  a  Board  of  Conciliation  and  Investigation,  to  be  constituted  under 
provisions  of  this  Act. 

2.  Every  agreement  to  allow  such  reference  shall  be  forwarded  to  the  Regis- 
trar, who  shall  communicate  it  to  the  other  party,  and  if  such  other  party  agrees 
in  like  manner  to  allow  the  dispute  to  be  referred  to  a  Board,  the  dispute  may 
be  so  referred  as  if  the  industry  or  trade  and  the  parties  were  included  within 
the  provisions  of  this  Act. 

By  the  Amendment  of  1918  it  was  provided  that:  Where  in  any  industry  a 
strike  or  lockout  has  occurred,  and  in  the  public  interest  or  for  any  other 
reason  it  seems  to  the  Minister  expedient,  the  Minister,  on  the  application  of 
any  municipality  interested,  or  of  the  mayor,  reeve,  or  other  head  officer,  or 
acting  head  officer  thereof,  or  of  his  own  motion  may,  without  application  ot 
either  of  the  parties  to  the  dispute,  strike  or  lockout,  whether  it  involves  one  or 
more  employers  or  employees  in  the  employ  of  one  or  more  employers,  consti- 

30 


tute  a  Board  of  Conciliation  and  Investigation  under  this  Act  in  respect  of  any 
dispute,  or  strike  or  lockout,  or  may  in  any  such  case,  if  it  seems  to  him  expedi- 
ent, either  with  or  without  an  application  from  any  interested  party,  recommend 
to  the  Governor  in  Council  the  appointment  of  some  person  or  persons  as  com- 
missioner or  commissioners  under  the  provisions  of  the  Inquiries  Act  to  inquire 
into  the  dispute,  strike  or  lockout,  or  into  any  matters  or  circumstances  con- 
nected therewith. 

The  Minister,  where  he  deems  it  expedient,  may,  either  upon  or  without 
any  application  in  that  behalf,  make  or  cause  to  be  made  any  inquiries  he  thinks 
fit  regarding  industrial  matters,  and  may  cause  such  steps  to  be  taken  by  his 
department  and  the  officers  thereof  as  seem  calculated  to  secure  industrial 
peace  and  to  promote  conditions  favourable  to  settlements  of  disputes." 


91900 

31 


Publications 

of  the 

National    Industrial   Conference    Board 

15  Beacon  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 


Research  Report  No.  I.     Workmen's  Compensation  Acts  in  the  United  States  —  The 
Legal  Phase.     60  pages.     April,  1917.     Revised,  August,  1919.     £1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  2.     Analysis  of  British  Wartime  Reports  on  Hours  of  Work 
as  Related  to  Output  and  Fatigue.     58  pages.     November,  1917.     £1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  j.     Strikes  in  American  Industry' in  Wartime      ?0  pages      March 
1918.     50  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  4.     Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers 

—  Cotton  Manufacturing.     64  pages.     March,  1918.     £1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  5.     The  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act.     28 

pages.     April,  1918.     50  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  6.     Sickness  Insurance  or  Sickness  Prevention?     24  pages      Mnv 

1918.  50  cents.  '    ' 
Research  Report  No.  7.     Hours  of  Wtork  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers 

—  Boot  and  Shoe  Industry.     76  pages.     June,  1918.     £1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  8.     Wartime  Employment  of  Women  in  the  Metal  Trades      80 

pages.     July,  1918.     £1.00. 
Research  Report  No.  p.     Wartime  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living  —  July    1914    to 

June,  1918.     82  pages.     August,  1918.     £1.00. 
Research  Report  No.  10.    Arbitration  and  Wage-Fixing  in  Australia.     5'  pages      Octo 

ber,  1918.     £1.00. 
Research  Report  No.  it.     The  Eight-Hour  Day  Defined.     12  pages.     December    1918. 

50  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  12.     Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers 

—  Wool  Manufacturing.     69  pages.     December,  1918.     £1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  13.     Rest  Periods  for  Industrial  Workers.     55  pages      Tmuirv 

1919.  £1.00.  r* 
Research  Report  No.  14.     Wartime  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living  —  July    1914    to 

November,  1918.     33  pages.     February,  1919.     75  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  15.     Problems  of  Industrial  Readjustment  in  the  United  States 

58  pages.     February,  1919.     £1.00. 
Research  Report  No.  16.     Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers 

—  Silk  Manufacturing.     54  pages.     March,  1919.     £1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  17.     Wartime  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living — July    1914    to 

March,  1919.     31  pages.     May,  1919.     75  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  18.      Hours   of   Work   as   Related   to   Output   and   Health    of 

Workers  —  Metal  Manufacturing  Industries.     62  pages.     July,  1919.     £1.00. 
Research  Report  No.  ig.     Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living  —  July,  1914,  to  July    1919 

31  pages.     September,  1919.     75  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  20.     Wartime  Changes  in  Wages  —  (September,  1914  —  March 

1919).     128  pages.     September,  1919.     £1.50. 
Research  Report  No.  21.     Works  Councils  in  the  United  States.     135  pages      October 

1919.     £1.50. 
Research  Report  No.  22.     The  Cost  of  Living  among  Wage-Earners  —  Fall  River 

Massachusetts,  October,  1919.     18  pages.     November,  1919.     50  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  23.     Conciliation  and  Arbitration  in  New  Zealwd      46  pases 

December,  1919.     £1.00. 
Research   Report  No.   24.     The    Cost   of   Living    among    Wage-Earners  —  Lawrence 

Massachusetts,  November,   1919.     21   pages.     December,   1919.     50  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  25.     Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living,  July,  1914,  to  November 

1919.     24  pages.     December,  1919.     75  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  26.     A  Works  Council  Manual.     32  pages.     February,  1920.     £1.00. 
Research  Report  No.  27.     The  Hours  of  Work  Problem  in  the  Five  Major  Indus 

91  pages.     March,  1920.     £1.00. 

RESEARCH  REPORTS  IN  PREPARATION 

Conciliation  and  Arbitration   in  France. 

Federal  and  State  Agencies  of  Conciliation  and  Arbitration  in  the  United  States. 

Extent  and  Causes  of  Absence  among  Industrial  Workers. 

INDUSTRIAL  NEWS  SURVEY 

Weekly.     Important  industrial  news  in  concise  form.     £2.00  per  year. 


~  c 


£m& 


UCLA-Young   Research    Library 

HD5508.A3   N2 


L  009  571    821    9 


m 


K 


J, 


'S~h  , 


Hi 


■ 


m 


r< 


'S 


■  •■ ' !  X 


"V. 


';**•-,. 


